Felon/prohibited person in possession. Surprised those charges weren't added in a 'pile-on'.

And those 'trigger activators' have been a no-no for a long time.

The only time cases like this go away favorably is due to rules of evidence/bad search etc.

eaglemike

10-18-2009, 12:38 PM

Agreed on the slam dunk. I just thought it was kind of funny after reading some of the prior testimony and the judge's comment about Chinn's qualifications.
all the best,
Mike

Seesm

10-18-2009, 1:12 PM

OP YOUR surprised this happened and was upheld why?

B Strong

10-18-2009, 2:23 PM

OP YOUR surprised this happened and was upheld why?

What did I post that would lead you to believe that I was surprised?

This is a classic example of what not to do if you're in possession of any type of firearm.

The fact that Iggy is still considered to be an "Expert" witness doesn't surprise me either.

bwiese

10-18-2009, 2:50 PM

It's also a good demonstration that it's "legal to have a dead hooker in your trunk as long as your taillights work OK" .

jaymz

10-18-2009, 4:32 PM

Certainly sounds like a slam dunk to me as well, though this statement : "that a record in the California Firearms Information System database stating that a registration is on file with the DOJ does not mean the firearm was actually registered" is rather disturbing. If something can be shown in the database as a reg'd aw when it isn't, it seems to me that the opposite can also be true, and that those of you that have reg'd aw's better mind your manners more than ever, lest the State drain your bank account for a bogus arrest & trial.

B Strong

10-19-2009, 6:15 AM

It's also a good demonstration that it's "legal to have a dead hooker in your trunk as long as your taillights work OK" .

LOL!

SwissFluCase

10-19-2009, 10:30 AM

It's also a good demonstration that it's "legal to have a dead hooker in your trunk as long as your taillights work OK" .

That's the first thing I thought of. Anyone who carries something illegal in a car with visible problems like he had isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Keep your car in good working order!

Regards,

SwissFluCase

Turbinator

10-19-2009, 2:13 PM

It's also a good demonstration that it's "legal to have a dead hooker in your trunk as long as your taillights work OK" .

Is this the "it's only illegal if I get caught" mentality? Just checking.

Turby

bwiese

10-19-2009, 2:30 PM

Is this the "it's only illegal if I get caught" mentality? Just checking.

Yup, which some people here seem to adore unfortunately.

This case may also have shown poor judgment in consent to search matters (I only glossed thru it - once I saw prior felon/prohibited person I stopped.)

It certainly showed Big IQ Fail.

Ding126

10-19-2009, 3:27 PM

I bet he's a forum member and has posted a thread asking if he can own a firearm. Just a thought :sarcasm:

B Strong

10-20-2009, 6:08 AM

Yup, which some people here seem to adore unfortunately.

This case may also have shown poor judgment in consent to search matters (I only glossed thru it - once I saw prior felon/prohibited person I stopped.)

It certainly showed Big IQ Fail.

Not just here Bill, it's just about everywhere.

Nowadays people who break the law just don't expect to be caught, they expect that they shouldn't face the consequences if they do get caught, and they blame everybody but themselves for their predicament.

7x57

10-20-2009, 7:51 AM

Nowadays people who break the law just don't expect to be caught, they expect that they shouldn't face the consequences if they do get caught, and they blame everybody but themselves for their predicament.

And people wonder why I tend to discuss ethics and other airy-fairy stuff.

Those people were systematically *taught* to do that. A society that does not believe in an ethics that makes a real metaphysical distinction between guilt and innocence and which connects ethics to law is a society whose laws are simply imposed by force on a population which obeys them only as necessary.

Criminal law is about the imposition of morality on those who will not govern themselves. Societies which which to last have a metaphysics which justifies this use of force (and, in a limited government system, also explains when it is *not* justifiable).

Among other things, the erosion of the right of self-defense is based on a metaphysics without real guilt. To justify self-defense you must be able to make a real moral distinction between victim and attacker.

7x57

Marxman

10-20-2009, 8:16 AM

So, this guy ws supposedly 'developing a weapon for the military' studied physics at Berkely, thought a 'trigger activator' would improve his accuracy, and had a busted tail-light? I didn't know that Berkely and the military had so lowered their standards.

B Strong

10-20-2009, 5:26 PM

And people wonder why I tend to discuss ethics and other airy-fairy stuff.

Those people were systematically *taught* to do that. A society that does not believe in an ethics that makes a real metaphysical distinction between guilt and innocence and which connects ethics to law is a society whose laws are simply imposed by force on a population which obeys them only as necessary.

Criminal law is about the imposition of morality on those who will not govern themselves. Societies which which to last have a metaphysics which justifies this use of force (and, in a limited government system, also explains when it is *not* justifiable).

Among other things, the erosion of the right of self-defense is based on a metaphysics without real guilt. To justify self-defense you must be able to make a real moral distinction between victim and attacker.

7x57

You sir, are 100% correct.

B Strong

10-20-2009, 5:27 PM

So, this guy ws supposedly 'developing a weapon for the military' studied physics at Berkely, thought a 'trigger activator' would improve his accuracy, and had a busted tail-light? I didn't know that Berkely and the military had so lowered their standards.

Don't forget the license plate issue.

Cal doesn't turn 'em out like they used to.

curtisfong

10-20-2009, 5:59 PM

A society that does not believe in an ethics that makes a real metaphysical distinction between guilt and innocence and which connects ethics to law is a society whose laws are simply imposed by force on a population which obeys them only as necessary.

Bah. That is strictly Kolberg stage 1 & 2.

Worthless. There are much better systems of morality which do not require metaphysics or superstition.

7x57

10-20-2009, 6:18 PM

Bah. That is strictly Kolberg stage 1 & 2.

Worthless. There are much better systems of morality which do not require metaphysics or superstition.

:rofl:

If you haven't understood a word I've said, you might be careful what you call "worthless."

In any case, I care little for Kolberg's work and don't use it as a measure. You're entitled to, but you might at least apply it correctly.

7x57

curtisfong

10-20-2009, 6:34 PM

at least apply it correctly.

I was specifically referring to the connection between not only ethics and law , but also the value of both "It's ok if I don't get caught" and "it's ok if it's legal/it's not ok if its illegal" as moral systems.

Whether or not you agree with Kohlberg, we can definitely classify (at a meta level) moral systems, both along practical lines, and sophistication.

Avoidance of punishment (real or imagined) is not terribly sophisticated.

Blind acceptance of authority (real or imagined) is only slightly more sophisticated.

The only simultaneously rational, stable, and practical system is one based on social contract or universal ethics, neither of which must necessarily depend on metaphysics/superstition to distinguish victim from attacker.

Sorry if you took my response as an attack, it was not meant that way.